But that ignores not just the mate-in-N test (fail) but also the endgame position test (fail).

I didn't fail any of those because no game was being played.

I found moves that mated in the mate-in-N position, and those moves would have been enough in a game.

I found the saving move in the endgame position after 20 minutes of analysis, and that would have been enough to save the position in a game (I gave the wrong answer after 15 minutes - that only shows I'd suck at this if I played my games at 15 minutes/move).

"Test" does not mean "game". You took on both tests and failed both. (But I'd need convincing that the mate-in-N test is a good test, as I've said many times before.)

You can't argue that you'd have passed if you'd spent a bit longer. You had the choice of whether to spend longer or not. There's no one telling you how much time you need to spend, either in a test or in a CC game. You have to decide that yourself.

Couldn't find the winning move to save my life (ironically, I'd have still played the winning move, by luck, but for the challenge it was required that I found the win, which I found impossible.) All my methodologies failed, hope you enjoy that

Frankly, I've never cared about failing or succeeding in these, I care about what's the truth, sometimes it can't be found alone. I'm more happy losing 1.g4 against Harvey than I'd be if I drew that but it turned out 1.g4 was lost (but Harvey failed to win it). It's more important to find the truth than to see who loses what.

Couldn't find the winning move to save my life (ironically, I'd have still played the winning move, by luck, but for the challenge it was required that I found the win, which I found impossible.) All my methodologies failed, hope you enjoy that

Frankly, I've never cared about failing or succeeding in these, I care about what's the truth, sometimes it can't be found alone. I'm more happy losing 1.g4 against Harvey than I'd be if I drew that but it turned out 1.g4 was lost (but Harvey failed to win it). It's more important to find the truth than to see who loses what.

I am surprised to read that you failed the Plaskett's puzzle that is an old puzzle because even a very old chess engine from 2004 can solve it

Even without engines you could solve it simply by searching with google for the fen

That's cheating.

It's like saying "you could beat Zenmastur by contacting someone with big hardware that sees how 1...f5 wins and just ask them to relay you the moves." Sure I could! I know people, that'd be no problem.

But what would be the point?

Presumably I could have solved this test by just downloading all the engines from the CCRL, and try them one by one for one minute until I found one that got it (I just need to get to Gothmog.) But I'd not have done that *in a game*. The point is that I have systems that I use on games and that none of them worked for this. In a game I wouldn't know white is winning and I need to find the winning move, so I'd never do that, so my failure stands.

I already admitted on the post I linked to for that thread, that I'd have resigned that position I was winning if it was a game. In other words, anyone could have made me play into a position like that because I'd have wrongly thought I (as black) was winning it, and defeated me.

Since apparently jp has been waiting for a position that cracks me like this one, I just brought this from the past to save his time. It already happened. It's done.